welcome to the campus of saint mary's in moragga. welcome to the debate between state senator barbara boxer and her challenger, carly fiorina. before welcoming the candidates, let me introduce to you the journalists who will be asking tonight's questions. carla marenucci is the chronicle political reporter. scott chasey is of the report. and pilar is with the law. we'll also be taking some questions from ktvu viewers. now, it's time to introduce the candidates. please welcome senator barbara boxer and carly fiorina. [ applause ]

>> thank you both for joining us. democrat barbara boxer is a three-term united states senator. she has served in the senate since 1993 before that. she served in the house of representatives for 10 years. republican carly fiorina is running for elected office for the first time. her background is in business. fiorina served for six years as chief executive officer of hiewlts packard. thank you both for joining us tonight. let's get started. before tonight's debate, you participated in a coin toss. senator, you won but chose to let carly fiorina go first. >> thank you very much. please call me carly. it's great to be with you all here. and thank you for letting us into your homes this evening. i know, i have lived the american dream. i started out like most americans do in a small

business. i typed, i filed, i answered phones for a little nine-person company about an hour from where we are tonight. my husband started out driving a tow truck for the city of pittsburgh, pennsylvania. and i am running for office because like so many of you, i think our country is heading in the wrong direction. and i think the american dream is too hard for too many. frank and i are worried that our granddaughters won't have the same opportunities that we had. i have never run for public office before. but i think our founding fathers intended for ours to be an elected government. i have created jobs, cut spending and solved problems. and i think we need practical problem solving ability in washington, d.c. barbarabarbara boxer has been in washington, d.c. for 28 long years, and though she may say many things tonight, her track record, her long track record in washington, d.c. is consistent and clear, and the results of her policies are

devastating for this state. in the last 20 months alone, our unemployment rate has grown from 10.2% to 12.3%. our debt has gone from 10.8 trillion to 13 tril yoon, on its way -- trillion, on its way to 20 trillion. barbara boxer may say she's fighting hard for californians. but the truth is, she is fighting hard for another six years in washington, d.c. >> senator, you get another chance now. >> thank you, everybody. it's wonderful to be here. thanks to the good people of california who have put their faith in me. and because of that, i've been able to enact thousands of provisions, for our children, the first-ever, after-school program. for our veterans, the first- ever, comprehensive casualty care center in california for our wounded warriors. we've doubled the transportation funding. that means thousand of job -- thousands of jobs. and jobs are my focus. that's why i'm working to make california the hub of the new

clean energy economy. that's why i'm working to make sure small business gets access to credit. and that's why i'm working to stop tax breaks to companies who ship overseas. jobs overseas. and when i talk about shipping jobs overseas, i'm reminded of my opponent. when she was ceo of hewlett packard, before she was terminated, actually, she shipped 30,000 jobs overseas. think of it. that's the size of foster city. and through all of that pain, what did she do to show any sacrifice? she took $100 million. so that reminds me of wall street. that's what happened on wall street. bonuses at the top, paying for -- pain for everyone else. i want to see the words "made in america" again. and i ask for your vote. thank you. >> thank you. now, to the questions. but first, a few guidelines. you'll both get up to 90

seconds to answer a question. the other asked -- candidate will have up to 60 seconds for rebuttal. one note. we have lots of questions tonight. i'm sure our audience would appreciate brief, concise answers. if it is under 90 seconds, i'm sure no one would compain. let's get to the economy. you supported the tax can the -- cuts. but you've opposed to jobs bills. a teacher jobs bill that would bring 16,000 job toss california. the other which is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce. how do you justify immediate health for the wealthiest of americans but not for average americans who might be out of a job and listening to this debate tonight. >> i think first, we might describe what the tax cuts really were, tax cuts that are going to expire in january.

the vast majority of that tax relief went to middle class americans. and in fact, if those tax cuts are not extended, the average california family will pay up to $1600 more in traxes. it's -- taxes. it's also true that they are struggling under the businesses. senator boxer has struggled under small tax relief every time. the death tax will skyrocket on january 1st. we have 88,000 farms in this great state. most of them family owned, to create jobs. we need to make sure that in particular, our small businesses, our family-owned businesses, our innovators, and entrepreneurs are freed from strangling regulations and freed from taxation. i think in the middle of a terrible recession, this is the worst economic nice since 1989

and since 1929 in this state. just think about it. we have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. we have 23 counties, with unemployment above 15%. and meanwhile, in the past 20 months, the federal government spending has increased 10% each year. and federal government employees have increased 14 1/2% over the last two years. >> senator boxer, you have 60 seconds to reply. >> i'd like to go back to the question. because it's very important. we had 16,500 teachers plus get pink slips in the mail. they were going to be not in the classroom when our children are there. what's more important than our children? you opinion, i'm a product of public schools. 95% of our people go to public schools. the kid goes to public schools. this was a bill that was paid for. do you know that my opponent

actually called that bill, where we saved these jobs a disgrace. she called it disgraceful. now, i'll tell you why she doesn't like it. because we paid for that bill. it was deficit-neutral because we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who shift jobs overseas. so every time you really get past the surface, you see my opponent fighting for the billionaires, for the millionaires, for the companies who ship jobs overseas. she even opposes the small business legislation that everybody supports. we give tax breaks to small business. >> you have the next question. and it's for senator boxer. >> senator boxer, last night, president obama officially ended the u.s. combat mission in iraq. during the course of that war, more than 4400 americans died and tens of thousands more came home with physical and mental

disabilities. and my question is, do you think it was wort the cost -- worth the cost? and when is it time to say enough is enough? >> i'm very happy that our combat troops are coming back from iraq. i was one of about 23 who did not vote for that war. i did, in fact, vote for the troops. i voted for 85% of all of the spending bills we had, even though i had disagreements on that war. and when i opposed any of those bills, it's because it wasn't good enough for our wounded warriors. so i'm so glad they're coming back. and i think the reason we are at this point is because america finally said through our president, this is the date we're coming home, say to the iraqis, you have to step up to the plate and defend your own nation. i believe in nation helpings. not nation building. and i feel the same way in afghanistan. i did vote to go after osama

bin laden and george w. bush turned away from it and went into iraq. and i do support the president trying to see that we can train the afghan people to, again, defend themselves. but i do want to see more time lines drawn there. i think it's important to send that signal. this is a time frame i'm on the fine gold bill, which you can read, which essentially says, give us a timetable. give us the conditions in which we can bring our troops home. and i think we're on that track. i support beginning the withdrawal by 2011. but i'm happy that our troops are coming home. they are the bravest, they are the greatest. and now we have to take care of them. they have some terrible injuries and wounds. i just went to that comprehensive casualty care center. and they're doing miraculous things there. >> senator, time is up. apparently the lights aren't working. but a real quick follow-up before we go to your answer. >> sure. >> if the president doesn't

come up with a written time line as you've suggested he do, will you call him out on that, as you did president bush? you were very critical of president bush for not having firm time lines. you haven't been as critical of president obama. >> well, actually, i've already stated it publicly, and i'm on the fine gold bill -- feingold bill, which would require the president to do that. i don't think this is a matter of partisanship. it's a matter of our troops. we need to rebuild america. we're in a tough time. i think we can help afghanistan and help iraq. but we need to rebuild our country. >> okay. miss fiorina, your reply? >> you know, senator boxer's last two answers are a perfect illustration of her rhetoric versus reality. let's take a look at her record supporting men and women in uniform. she voted against body armor. she voted against support for brain trauma and post traumatic stress syndrome. she voted against extended

family leave for their families. and the vote she cast so upset senator joe biden, he said, this is a political vote. nothing is worse. in that case, his son's life. the truth is, the small business bill she supported could have been a great bill, but they threw in there tarp junior, the opportunity for the federal government to take equity positions in community banks. we all know how well that worked out with tarp senior. it didn't work so well. it didn't get credit flowing so well. as for this, we are playing political foot with this. and they have been fighting over who gets the money. and the vast majority of teachers won't be employed until 2012. and some of it may go to reducing the deficit. >> time is up. and pilar, you have the next question for miz fi -- ms. fiorina. >> every year, 65,000 men and women graduate from high school in the u.s. and have a hard

time furthering their education or finding a job because they were brought here illegally when they were children. they are undocumented, through no fault of their own. would you continue in this limbo? would you send them all back to countries they don't really know? or would you consider legislation that helps them in the long path to citizenship if they study and meet certain rules. >> you know, i believe that the 21st century is the century of brain power and innovation. and we need to cultivate all of the brain power we can by making sure that people are well educated here. yes, i would support the dream act. because i do not believe that we can punish children who, through no fault of their own, are here trying to live the american dream. now, let me very quickly say, i do not support amnesty for those who come here illegally. i believe the federal government must secure the border. and it has not done its job. i believe the federal government as well must come up

with a guest worker program that works. senator boxer has vilified the people of arizona, even though the federal government isn't doing its job. and at a critical moment in 2007, when a guest worker program was on the table, she was the deciding vote that killed the guest worker program and in essence, destroyed a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform. and when she voted for the dorgan amendment, which killed that guest worker program, her comment was that immigrants represent a cheap source of labor that threatens the american worker. you see, if you look at senator boxer's long track record of 28 years in washington, d.c., you will see this. she is for more taxes. she is for more spending. she is for more regulations. and she is also for big government and elite, extreme environmental groups. >> senator. >> first, i have to say that i am very proud of my record for

veterans. and that's why i am the bipartisan -- i'm the cochair of the bipartisan military families caucus. and i have a record which won me an award from doctors who were trying to find out better treatments for burn victims. i got the first funding for traumatic brain injury. and my husband served in the military. so i love the military. in a very personal way. now, what i want to say about immigration is this. my opponent called comprehensive immigration reform a distraction. imagine, a distraction. we have 11 million people here who are living in the shadows. and here's where we stand, under the law, since my opponent feels we shouldn't deal with this issue, they would have to be deported. we just have a recent study from usc and several other very important institutions that

said the way to get this economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. now, the dream act is part of that. >> senator, i'm sorry, your time is up. >> the dream act is part of that. >> over the past few weeks, viewers and readers have been sending in questions. they would like to hear the candidate's answer. so right now, we're going to shift gears a little bit and hear a couple of those questions. the first question comes from mr. tim tam. he is a democrat and lives in oakland. >> senator boxer, you have been staying in the office three terms. why don't you let other people try? >> that question was you've been in office three terms, why not give other folks a chance. >> i did hear it. [ laughter ] >> well, my answer is, every election is a chance. that's what america is about. and you know, i have to say this. our founders decided to put the power in the hands of the people.

and the people have to vote. now, i have been so fortunate. i'm a first generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated from high school. she had to work to support the family. and i'm in the united states senate. why? because i fight for people. because i fight for the dream. but of course, every time i run, a always have a tough fight on my hands. and people are going to decide if they want to have me back. or if they want to elect someone who made her name as a ceo in hewlett packard laying thousands and thousands of workers off, shipping their jobs overseas, making no sacrifice while she was doing it, taking $100 million. i don't think we need those wall street values right now. so every race i run in, there's a clear choice. there's a clear choice here on jobs. there's a clear choice on the issues of offshore oil drilling. there is a clear choice on the issue of a woman's right to

choose and many other areas that i think we'll get to tonight. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? >> well, you know, i think it's a good question. and senator boxer is right. ultimately, the choice is up to voters. but i think one of the things that voters believe is that results count. in her 18 years in the senate, senator boxer has four bills with her name on them. four pieces of legislation. that is far below the record or even the average. and those four bills include naming a river in virginia, naming a courthouse, renaming a post office, and bringing some federal dollars back to the bay area after the earthquake. it is all well and good for senator boxer to continue to mischaracterize my record. i would remind her that it was she who voted for the wall street bailout. it is she who has taken many contributions from wall street executives. and i would remind her as well that when you lead a business,

whether it's a nine-person business or 150,000 people, you sometimes have to make the agonizing choice to lose some jobs to save more. and what enrages people in california, as they see people making those tough choices absolutely every day and stores shuttering, is federal government employees growing at 14 1/2%. >> i'm sorry. time is up. our next viewer question is for ms. fiorina. and comes from a peninsula republican tom watson. mr. watson is a retired employee from hewlett packard. and he has a question regarding the outsourcing of jobs at hp. >> carly, while up were at h.p., you sent thousands of jobs offshore n. defense of your actions, you coined the phrase right shoring. also in a keynote speech in 2004, you said, there is no job that is america's god-given right anymore. do you still feel that way?

orplans to create jobs? california? >> this is -- jobs in california? >> this is the 21st century. any job can go anywhere. and what worries me deeply is the jobs we lose now may not come back. so we have to fight for every job. the truth is that california has higher-than-average unemployment rate because we are destroying jobs and others are fighting harder for our jobs. texas is fighting harder for our jobs. so is north carolina, brazil, guatemala, china, india, russia, poland. i know precisely why those jobs go. and i'll tell you why. because chine afor example, like texas, like brazil, gives companies huge tax credits. they help them cult through reg -- cut through regulation. they reward rnd. they provide access to credit. that's what we need to do.

i've proposed a po2-year payroll -- a two-year payroll holiday. a five-year tax holiday for new businesses that will relocate here. to use the power to create special economic zones to help companies cut through regulations. instead of bailing out general motors, let us give them the incentives to bring their plants back home and to hire american borkers. and let -- workers. and let us decide that in this country, we are going to be once again, number 1 in innovation. we have fallen to 17 in the world. we have to fight for innovation. and that means we have to be number 1 in the world in terms of incentive we provide for rnd. we can grow our economy again. but we have to fight for sector jobs. and frankly, i don't think there are enough people in washington who understand why private sector jobs are important. >> let's go to your connection with h.p. you said in the past that

schoolteachers should have their pay connected with their job. when you were forced to resign with the stock market in hp, you got a severance of $27 million. some might say, shouldn't ceos have the same standards as schoolteachers? >> absolutely they should. in fact, in my time at hewlett packard, i ripped up my contract and put my salary up for shareholder vote. and every dollar was put to performance. and in the six years i managed hewlett packard during the worst technology recession in 25 years. we doubled the size, tripled the rate of innovation, quint upled the cash flow. improved the product line and in fact, our stock outperformed the pure index by 27%. >> we have to move on. senator, your reply. >> yes, i think we're entitled

to our opinions, but not entitled to our facts. the facts are, there was a $21 million severance check. and my understanding is, it was taken, after my opponent was fired. the stock went down more than 50%. so if she's calling for accountability with teachers, there ought to be accountability with ceos. i think it's really simple. but i think the view asked the question hit on something very important. and i think it is this. if ever we needed a united states senator from california to fight for american jobs, it's now. my opponent, we know that she shipped jobs overseas, thousands of them. we know she fired workers, tens of thousands of them. but we also know she has opposed every jobs bill that we voted on. the hire act, which gave a tax holiday to business people if they hired an unemployed person. she opposed that.

she opposed the teachers. bringing back 16,500 teachers into the classroom. she opposed that. she opposed wall street reform. >> sorry, senator. time is up. but you do get the next question. and it's from carla marenucci. >> sorry. >> senator, many of our readers at sf gate.com asked us to ask you this. it regards one of the very often repeated clips on the internet. >> all right. >> which n which you tie -- in which you touted brigadier general michael walsh. he appeared before you in committee, addressed you as ma'am. and you told him, you should be called senator, because you worked hard to get that title. a lot of the readers said it showed that you had gotten out of touch after three terms in washington. high-handed. why did you make that comment to the brigadier general? >> people absolutely have the right to criticize me for anything i do. but in that particular moment, we were having a lot of back and forth. this was a formal hearing. so i made the call that i

should call the general, general. and it would be better if he called me by my formal title, instead of sir, ma'am, general, senator. that's what it was. afterwards, i called the general, and i said, do i owe you an apology? did i upset you? he said, no, not at all. and we work very well together. we're working very well together. he's working on army corps of engineer projects, right now, as we speak. after the bp spill. he's helping us with our flood control in sacramento. so that's what that was about. >> ms. fiorina? >> well, i'm certainly pleased to hear that senator boxer called the general and asked if she needed to apologize. and i take him at his word if he indicates indicates that he was not offended. and i absolutely agree with senator boxer, that we're not entitled to our own facts. i think it's actually a shame. that barbara boxer would use

hewlett packard, a treasure of california, one of the great companies in the world, whose employees work very hard and whose shareholders have benefited greatly from both my time at ceo and all of the hard work of the employees that i had the privilege to lead. i think it's a shame that she would use that company as a political football. i understand she's going to mischaracterize my record and my severance package. but i think it's a shame she would use the company in that way. as for her reference to wall street reform, let's just talk about wall street reform for a second. you know, the wall street crisis hit. and turns out, there were 27 agencies asleep at the switch. but what they did in essence was say, never mind those agencies. never mind fanny ask freddie. let's create a brand new agency with a bunch of new federal government bureaucrats. >> i'm sorry. time is up. and i've noticed that both of you are kind of drifting off the question to answer something you'd like to answer. i understand it's frustrating

for you at times. but if you could answer the questions directly, that would be great. scott, you have a question for ms. fiorina. >> thank you. ms. fiorina, you supported proposition 8. and say that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. domestic partnerships and civil unions are notirize recognized -- not recognized by the federal government. and this means that gay and lesbian couples are denied thousands of rights that heterosexual couples get, like benefits from social security. should federal law be be changed to federal equal status? if not, why not? >> i believe marriage is between a man and a woman. but i also have been simple and clear. i support civil unions. also, the position i have consistently espoused is

consistent with that of our president and the vast majority of senators in the u.s. senate. i think what we now are seeing on proposition 8 is that the voters were quite clear about their views on this. and this is now going through a legal process. whatever your views about gay marriage, i think many of us would conclude that when voters have such a clear decision, for that decision to be overturned by a single judge, seems perhaps not appropriate. and so this is now the beginning of what will be a long legal process. i support very much the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and i know that the military is getting ready to release its report on the best way to execute that decision. >> senator boxer? your reply? >> yes. you know, we do have courts that check the legislature. and the legislature checks the

president. that's what our constitution says. so yes, a lot of our laws that pass may go through that test f. you read ron george's decision on this -- by the way, a republican who was appointed to the state of california bench, he's clear. he says the only way to get equal rights to gays and lesbians is to say that there should be marriage equality. it's a very straightforward decision. because as you said, the only way to get the rights that married couples have, is to go for marriage equality. and i think -- and i'm glad to say, i believe people are coming around to see it. and i also would just say in terms of what we heard about the fact that i shouldn't talk about my opponent's stay at hp, she's running on her record, as the former ceo of hewlett packard. so what she did there counts. and i'm going to keep on telling the truth about it. >> and i'm going to keep watching the clock. i'm sorry. [ laughter ]

>> pilar, you have the next question. >> yes. and it's for the senator. senator, in news stories and the polls, it appears that voters and analysts tend to look at senator feinstein tas a california senator who can work with the other side of the aisle, and you as the more partisan senator. can you think of a time when you disagreed strongly with president obama about something and you did something about it. >> well, yes, i actually can. first, let letme just say, i am a cosponsor on 500 republican bills. and i can give you a list on things i worked on with my colleagues. the after-school bill was done with a republican colleague. and many of the work -- a lot of the work i've done has been with republican colleagues w. president obama at this particular point, i do think we need an exit strategy from afghanistan. i do believe it's very important. so that's one clear example. i also, if i were him, i'd appoint elizabeth warren, right

now, to head that new consumer agency that is going to be looking over credit cards. because as you said, people don't read all that was fine print. and we need to have somebody looking over the shoulder of the banks. my opponent opposed that wall street reform. it sets up that consumer product safety product -- consumer protection agency for the first time. you'll be able to have somebody looking out for you, to make sure you don't get -- i don't want to use that word. make sure you get treated fairly on your mortgage and you get treated fairly on your credit cards. >> senator, thank you. ms. fiorina, your reply? >> i think the senator is right. we both need to run on our records. and i am proud to run on my record at hewlett packard. and i think the senator must run on her record. and the truth is, hear record is long on talk and very short on achievement. and the reason it is short on achievement is because she is

one of the most bitterly partisan members of the u.s. senate. that is why, after 18 long years in the senate, 28 years in washington, d.c., she only has four relatively insignificant bills with her name on them. the truth is, her piece of legislation as the chairman of environment and public works, she could not shepherd that to a conclusion. that bill was taken away from her and given to john kerry because it was believed that he had a better chance of getting bipartisan support. i don't happen to support her cap and trade bill. it has been called the most expensive piece of regulation and legislation in u.s. history. but nevertheless, i think it's telling that her bitter partisanship prevented her from getting her top priority accomplished in the u.s. senate. >> thank you. >> carla, you have the next question. >> ms. fiorina, you're pro life. and you have said you would vote to overturn roe v wade if given the opportunity. and you believe that life

begins at conception. does that mean you would also seek to deny funding to institutions which are engaged in embryonic stem cell research? >> well, i am pro life. i am pro life because of my personal experiences. my husband's mother was told to abort him. he did not. her health was threatened as a result. she lived a ripe old age to 98. and my husband, obviously, is the rock of my life. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this. and i recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control. but with regarding to -- regard to your very specific question, i am comfortable with federal funding for adult stem cell research, which shows more promise, according to many scientists. and i have also been very clear in saying that if embryos were going to be destroyed in any event, that i have no trouble with research.

it is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research that i have a great deal of difficulty. and i think the judge's ruling that recently came out basically suggested that we don't have clear enough guidelines about whether embryos are being produced for destruction. senator boxer voted against a ban on human cloning. so we know where she stands on this issue. her positions on these issues are extreme. she has said that she doesn't think a baby has rights until it leaves the hospital. so i think the judge who said we need to have some clarity about these rules to ensure that embryos are not being destroyed. >> before the senator gets a chance to reply, real quick, i just want to make sure that carla's -- the premise of her question was correct. you do suggest we overturn roe v. wade. >> if there were an opportunity. it's not something i'm running on.

by the way, the reason i'm on that, i am a supporter of rights. i am prepared to trust the voters' judgment on offshore drilling. i am prepared to trust the voters' judgment on the right to choose. and californians have made their decisions on those issues. >> senator, your rebuttal. >> yes, i mean, i respect everybody's personal view. and everybody has a story as to why they come to a certain position. that's why i'm pro choice. i let people decide. what people of california have to understand is that if my opponents' views prevailed, women and doctors would be criminals. they would go to jail. and woman would ky like they did -- die like they did before roe v. wade. this is not about my opponent's personal view or my personal view, it's about the women and families of our state and of our country. now, my opponent says that i passed four bills. she keeps saying that. well, first she said three. now she's made it four.

the fact is, a thousand boxer provisions have been enacted. and we have a list of these. and we have 100 of them up on barbara boxer.com for to you see. as a matter of fact, i'm very proud of those provisions. now, under the way she is counting bills, mccain- feingold, neither of them would have gotten credit for the mccain-feingold finance reform. because i don't know whether my opponent is trying to confuse people. but the fact of the matter is, the way a bill becomes a law has many, many tracks. it could be straightforward to the bill -- >> i hate to be a broken record, but time is up. sorry, senator. >> it's okay. >> scott, you have the next question. >> senator boxer, there is no question that president obama inherited a terrible economy. and democrats often blame the current troubles on his predecessor. >> yeah. >> yet democrats have controlled congress for almost four years. president obama is nearing the halfway point of his first

term. and the unemployment rate is stuck above 9%. and there are signs the economy is slowing down again. at what point should democrats stop blaming president bush and start taking full responsibility for the economy. >> we're taking responsibility and taking action. i talked about a number of those things that we've already done, making sure teachers stay in the classroom. making sure that small businesses get access to credit. all we need is one republican to get that bill done when we get back. and i think we'll get that one republican. then we can create 500 to -- 1,000 to a million new jobs. but you know, i feel that you have to look at history. otherwise, you'll repeat it. so let me tell you. i serve for eight years with bill clinton. and i supported every budget and every economic policy. we created $23 -- 23 million new jobs, net. and not only did we balance the budget. but we created a surplus. then i served eight years with

george w. bush. i did not support his priorities and his budgets. we wound up with a $1.3 trillion dev stit after -- deficit after those eight years and the worst job creation record since herbert hoover. 1 million new jobs, compared to 23 million. so yes. we didn't get here overnight. and we're not going to solve it overnight. but job by job by job, we are going to solve it. there is a man out here in the audience. i don't want to embarrass him. jay smith, if he's out there, who is working because of the economic recovery act on doyle drive. 2,000 workers working because of the economic recovery act. so yes, we're taking responsibility. but people in this country and my state have to get the whole picture. >> thank you. ms. fiorina, your reply? >> recovery summer has become the summer of despair in california. in the last 20 months, our

unemployment rate has gone from 10.2%, to 12.3%. i have talked with small business owners up and down this state, and they are being strangled by too much cost, too much uncertainty, too much regulation. barbara boxer is promising numbers and jobs now. when she voted for that stimulus bill that has manifestly failed, she said that it would bring help and hope and 400,000 jobs to this state. and we now have 2.3 million people out of work. and as for fiscal discipline, why is it that she has voted six times against a balanced budget amendment, including during president clinton's time? why is it she has voted six times to increase the debt ceiling in the last 20 months alone? and why is it that she has voted four times against a relatively modest, bipartisan proposal, to slow the rate of increase in federal government spending to 1.5%. her record is crystal clear.

>> time is up again. pilar. you have the next question. >> yes. and it's for ms. fiorina. your campaign put out an ad sometime ago, that seemed to equate global warming with the weather. you have also said that ab32, the anti-global warming measure in california is a job killer and should be suspended. there is a proposition now, prop 23, that would two just that. -- do just that. and i'm not sure you have taken a position on that. so i have a double we -- question. what is your position on that? and do you think global warming is real? >> the ad you're talking about is really about national security and what are our priorities for national security. and i think that's a very legitimate question to be asked of senator boxer, who has been campaigning since 1992. on cutting our military budget in half. who believes that terrorists should be given the

constitutional rights of the u.s. citizens. that is what that ad was about. we should always have the courage to examine the science. but all scientists agree on this. the only way to impact global warming is to act globally. a state acting alone will make no difference. what we need in this country, a priority of mine if i am fortunate enough to gain the confidence of the voters of california, will be a national and comprehensive energy bill. and that means that ab32 would be superseded. it should be. it would have been superseded by barbara boxer's cap and trade bill. but her bill was completely the wrong track. it would have cost us trillions of dollars and lost economic output, millions of jobs. it doesn't do enough to fund energy rnd. what we need to do in a comprehensive energy policy is fund energy rnd. give more funding to lawrence livermore, for example, more to berkeley. we also need to take advantage

in an environmentally responsible way of every source of energy we have, including nuclear, wind, solar. and we have to acknowledge that we cannot put bills in place that punish excessively, energy- intensive industries. like farming, like manufacturing. >> so time is up. but you didn't answer part of pilar's question, which is, do you support prop 23, which would suspend ab-32. >> my focus is on a national energy policy. >> yes or no. just answer, do you support it? >> i have not taken a position on it yet. i think what we're doing -- there is no question in my mind and no question in those who have studied ab32, that ab32 is at the very least, in the short term a job killer. so why would we go forward. but what we need is national energy policy. >> senator boxer? >> well, if you can't take a stand on prop 23, i don't know what you will take a stand on. this is a crucial bill.

and i'll tell you the reason why. if we overturn california's clean energy policies, that's going to mean that china takes the lead away from us with solar. that germany takes the lead from us with wind. but i guess my opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in china and other places. i want those jobs created here in america. i want to see the words "made in america" again. and this is the way we're going to do it. the whole world is going green. and i know that my opponent has gotten huge support from the coal companies, from big oil. they are hoping that i don't make it. and i am asking the people of this state who care about these issues to really take note. because if my opponent gets there, california is done for, in terms of its lead on clean energy. no bill i ever wrote ever superseded california's clean energy laws. because i honored those laws.

and they're creating jobs now. >> thank you. time is up. i think now would be a good time to go back to a couple of questions from viewers. and this next question is for senator boxer. it comes from alawna arm-- alanna armstrong. she is not a democrat, not a republican. she refers to herself as an independent. >> growing up on a small farm in the central valley, one thing that has always shock the me is the fact that the largest and wealthiest agro business stra interest collects 74% of the farm subsidies, while small family farms are unable to compete? what have you done in the u.s. senate to rectify this inequity? >> for the first time in the last farm bill, we, working together with my colleague, dianne feinstein, we were able to get the first recognition that our specialty crops need to take a place.

we grossed 300 different different products in our state. and for the first time, we were able to do that. i think there were big subsidies going to ethnol, that go to corn that don't make sense. and i fought hard to change those. but i really think there is a change. we have, in fact, limited some of the subsidies. we have said if you're a great big giant farm, and not a family farm, you're not going to get these subsidies. and i will tell you something else senator feinstein and i are doing. we want to make sure that the estate tax does not kick in for a family farm where the family continues the farming. if you're a huge farm, that's a different story. and you're in agrobusiness, that's different. but if you really are a family farm, you shouldn't have to pay that estate tax. because we want to encourage those farms to continue. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? >> you know, it's a lot of great words.

but in the real world, actions speak louder than words. senator boxer has voted against death tax relief 18 times. her track record is very clear. and while our 88,000 farms here in california, most of them family owned, struggled with water, with a lack of water, senator boxer refused to lift a finger. as chairwoman of environment and public works, she could have put an amendment forward to waive a biological assessment to turn the water back on in our central valley. she refused. when a colleague put that amendment forward, she voted against it. when senator feinstein stepped forward to put an amendment on the table that would waive that assessment and provide needed water, she pressured her colleague to drop that amendment. here is the truth. central valley struggles with record unemployment. they need water. and senator barbara boxer, the chairwoman of environment and public works, has stood in

their way. and she has over and over again refused to give them death tax relief. >> time is up. our next viewer question, and this is for you, carly fiorina. it comes from tracy holfield, a democrat from oakland. and i think it has to do with guns and airplanes, something you talked about in a primary debate. >> i read earlier that you're in favor of the people on the no-fly list to have guns. i'm a resident of oakland and that doesn't sit well with me at all. please explain your stance. >> i know it sounds so strange. but let's talk about the no-fly list for a moment. my sister-in-law was on the no- fly list. my friend of 20 years' husband was on the no-fly list. edward kennedy was on the no- fly list. the no-fly list isn't particularly well managed. people who shouldn't be on it are on it. and people who should be on it, like the christmas day bomber,

who almost made it out of the country, wasn't on it. here's the truth. we should not be taking constitutional rights away from citizens. and at the same time, giving constitutional rights to terrorists. and that's exactly what barbara boxer is in favor of doing. barbara boxer agrees that the vast majority of crimes committed with a gun are committed by criminals who have broken laws to acquire their guns. so let us proscute those laws. prosecute those laws. let us proscute those criminals. but let us not deny law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights. and instead give constitutional rights to terrorists, as senator boxer would like to do. >> senator, your reply? >> it's hard to know exactly how to start. but let me say this. it's shocking to me that my opponent would say, if you are on that no-fly list, there's only a few thousand. i'm sure that if your sister wanted a gun, they would look and see she could have that, if

in fact, she lived in california, she would have to go to the local sheriff. but it seems to me as someone who authored a bill with a republican colleague which became the law that says pilots who are trained have a right to carry a gun in the cockpit because there's so much concern by the pilots that they be able to take action. that's where you want to have a gun, on the airplane, not giving it to people who are on the terrorist watch list. when i saw my opponent say that, i was watching, it was in a debate. and tom campbell, who she was running against in the primary, he doesn't get very excited. and for the first time in my life, i saw him get excited. when she said this. and he said, oh, my goodness. and that was, for him, really getting excited. [ laughter ] so i think that is so out of step. so out of touch. and having that kind of view in the united states senate just is going to harm us. it's going to make us less safe. that's what it's going to do.

>> unbelievably, we're out of time for full questions with full answers. but let me just ask something real quick. if you could answer quickly. and senator, you could get a quick rebuttal. if i understand correctly, you're also for allowing the assault weapons ban to disappear. is that correct? >> i think it's crystal clear that we have loads of laws. and most of the time, criminals are breaking those laws. and we are curtailing citizens' lawful rights to carry guns. the assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary in what qualifies as an assault weapon. and let me just say, senator boxer, i don't know, perhaps she's truly confused or perhaps she is just trying to create rhetoric. but the no-fly list and the terrorist watch list are quite different things. >> we're really tight. i want to make sure the senator has time for a quick response. >> well, yes, the assault weapons ban has been in place in california since the 1980s. so to go back to that dangerous

yesterday makes no sense at all. it has bipartisan support. and also, my colleague, senator feinstein, has worked so hard to get that assault weapon ban to be in place nationally. and i have been her strong supporter in that. and i hope i can go back. because we want to have our state streets safe. >> okay. we're now going to shift to closing statements. and ms. fiorina, you go first. you get two minutes. >> thank you so much for the privilege, truly, to be here and to have a great debate with you, senator boxer. i have traveled up and down this wonderful state. and i have been struck by her beauty and by the spirit of californians. but i must say, i am also struck by the anger, the frustration, and yes, even the fear. i remember meeting the immigrant who had built his small business from the ground up, only to see it ruined with

too much taxation and too much regulation. and i remember him looking at me and saying, this is not the country i came to. my own government is destroying my livelihood. i remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggles to keep his community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. and i remember as well, the woman who looked me in the eye and grasped my hand and said, i have never voted before. but i am voting for you. because i am afraid for my children's future. promise me this, when you get to washington, you will not forget us. we can turn our nation around. we can get it back on the right track. we can get our state on the right track. we can grow our economy. we can control government spending. but to do all of these things, we must start by changing the people we send to washington. i asked for your support.

i asked for your vote. and i pledge to you this. i will go to the u.s. senate, and i will fight for the millions of californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. you don't ask for frills or favors. you give a lot. you expect little. you are asking for one simple thing now. that we take our government back, make it listen, and make it work. >> senator, you now get two minutes for a closing statement. >> thank you so much, everyone, for this opportunity. i think you've seen here, this is a very clear choice. and i'm going to run through some of the choices. this election is between someone who is fighting for jobs day in and day out. jobs right here in america. versus someone who, when she had the chance, laid off 30,000 workers and shipped jobs to china. this election is about someone who is working hard.

so that we can see the words "made in america" again. versus someone who was proud of her time at hp. when she stamped "made in china." made in india, on her products. this is a choice. a clear choice. between someone who is fighting for taxes for the middle class and small business, versus someone who is fighting for at this time wealthy, wealthy few, the billionaires, the ceos. this is a big difference in clean energy. one of us is fighting hard to make california the hub of the new clean-energy economy and the millions of jobs that go with it. the other is being supported by big oil and big hole. this is a choice between two people who differ on a woman's rice rite to chiews. i've worked my -- choose. i've worked my whole life to protect a woman and her ability

to choose. my opponent would turn that woman into a criminal. this is a very clear choice between someone who has fought all her life to protect our coast and the 400,000 jobs that rely on a beautiful coast. the fishermen, the tourist industry, the recreation industry. and my opponent does not support the boxer-feinstein legislation to permanently protect that coast. and finally, this is a choice. a choice between a candidate who fought really hard for wall street reform to end that mess over there, and someone who opposes that reform. and i think, frankly, acted just like a wall street ceo. what do i mean by that? destroying jobs for americans and taking it for yourself. >> senator, i'm sorry, time is up. >> i hope we don't go back to that. >> so thank you both. thank you, senator boxer. and thank you, senator carly fiorina. we apologize for not getting to more questions. we certainly would have liked

to. hopefully what we've talked about tonight will help people here and help viewers and listeners at home make informed decisions on what they should do on november 2nd. thanks to our panel of journalists. ask i'd like to thank everyone here at st. mary's college for hosting this debate. on behalf of ktvu, thanks for joining us and good night. [ applause ]

so my mercury moment happened during our family camping trip.

i grabbed my son a juice box...and left the cooler lid open. twenty minutes later, all our hot dogs were gone. and so was most of the car. my mercury agent, steve, told me the car was covered. i switched to mercury because i saved hundreds of dollars on my car insurance, but it was the service that really made me a happy camper... er...ex-camper.